RE MAGISTRATE M S KING; EX PARTE JACKSON [2015] WASC 394

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 394
Published:	20/10/2015
Case No:	CIV:2595/2015	Heard:	13 OCTOBER 2015
Coram:	MITCHELL J	Delivered:	13/10/15
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	GEORGE NEVILLE JACKSON
Catchwords:	Judicial review Application for review order No arguable ground of jurisdictional error identified Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Dividing Fences Act 1961 (WA), s 15 Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36
Case References:	Basell v Meredith (Unreported, WASC, Library No 970449, 9 September 1997) Craig v The State South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Jackson v Chrisp [2012] WASCA 158 Jackson v Chrisp [2013] WASC 380 Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd v Samsung C & T Corporation [2015] WASC 237 Palmer v Lynott [1981] WAR 157 Re Temby; Ex parte Stanton [2015] WASC 357

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : RE MAGISTRATE M S KING; EX PARTE JACKSON [2015] WASC 394 CORAM : MITCHELL J HEARD : 13 OCTOBER 2015 DELIVERED : 13 OCTOBER 2015 PUBLISHED : 20 OCTOBER 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 2595 of 2015 MATTER : In the matter of an application under the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36, for a review order against Magistrate M S King of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia at Armadale EX PARTE

GEORGE NEVILLE JACKSON

Applicant

Catchwords:

Judicial review - Application for review order - No arguable ground of jurisdictional error identified - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Dividing Fences Act 1961 (WA), s 15

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Basell v Meredith (Unreported, WASC, Library No 970449, 9 September 1997)
Craig v The State South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Jackson v Chrisp [2012] WASCA 158
Jackson v Chrisp [2013] WASC 380
Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd v Samsung C & T Corporation [2015] WASC 237
Palmer v Lynott [1981] WAR 157
Re Temby; Ex parte Stanton [2015] WASC 357

MITCHELL J

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously and has been edited from the court's record of the decision.)

Application

1 This application for a review order under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) forms part of a long-running dispute between Mr Jackson and his neighbours in relation to a dividing fence between properties at 20 and 22 Heather Road, Roleystone.

2 The background of the dispute is to be found in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Jackson v Chrisp,1 and also the decision of Allanson J in Jackson v Chrisp.2

3 The application is supported by an affidavit of Mr Jackson dated 5 October 2015. Mr Jackson, who appears without legal representation, has not included much of the material which would ordinarily found an application for a review…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re Magistrate M S King

Details

AGLC: Re Magistrate M S King [2015] WASC 394
Case: [2015] WASC 394
Decision Date: 20 OCTOBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by M S King for judicial review of a decision made by a Magistrate. The applicant sought a review order concerning the decision, which was made in the context of an application to disqualify a lawyer from appearing in a case. The court was required to determine whether there was an arguable ground of jurisdictional error in the Magistrate's decision, which would warrant a review order.

The court considered whether the applicant had established that the Magistrate's decision involved a jurisdictional error. The applicant argued that the Magistrate had failed to consider certain relevant factors, and that this constituted a jurisdictional error. However, the court found that the Magistrate had indeed considered the relevant factors, albeit in a different manner to that preferred by the applicant. The court held that there was no arguable ground of jurisdictional error in the decision, as it turned on its own facts.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for judicial review. The court found that there was no merit in the applicant's contention that the Magistrate had failed to consider relevant factors, and that the decision was therefore not subject to review. The court held that the decision was not flawed by any jurisdictional error, and that there was no arguable ground for a review order. The application was therefore dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.